Truths suppressed by the Establishment and society generally, and analytical overviews of reality to deepen understanding. All contents copyrighted. Brief quotations with attribution and URL [jasonzenith.blogspot.com] permitted.
Check out my other blog at taboo-truths.blogspot.com

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Stars in the entertainment industry invariably share a particular attribute: they have great manipulative instincts,
or what might be called "social intelligence." They have a knack for
getting and holding the attention of large numbers of people and being
viewed favorably by those people.

One of the tricks in
the manipulator's bag is cultivating an air of mystery. Another is
making oneself inaccessible at times, which is like playing "hard to
get." That which seems unattainable or difficult to get feels more
desirable to people.

Dylan employed both ploys by
rendering himself incommunicado for two weeks after the Nobel Committee
announced that they were awarding him the Prize for Literature. (It's so
grand it has to be capitalized!) They let it be known that they were
unable to contact Dylan to inform him, and finally said they were giving
him the prize anyway. (It is unprecedented for a songwriter to receive
the prize, another coup for Dylan that marks him as special. Dylan's
Specialness has been a constant throughout his career.)

Only
then did Dylan deign to make his presence known, like a being
descending from heaven. He said he was honored. But he kept up his
coyness, saying he didn't know if he "could" attend the awards
ceremony.

Really Robert? You don't know if it's possible for you to fly over to Oslo? Are you scheduled for urgent surgery or something? Maybe you haven't decided whether to go or not. (Or maybe you have.)

He
has written great songs. (And performed great songs written by others.)
And an awful singing voice. And rudimentary guitar-playing skills. (But
I like his music.) So he's got at least two notable talents.

FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to a clutch of Congressional Committee chairpeople notifying them that the FBI is reviewing a new batch of Hillary Clinton's emails that they found in the course of "an unrelated investigation." [Media reports say that investigation is of Anthony Weiner.]

What could possibly be new in this? The FBI had already concluded that there was "classified" emails on Clinton's server, and Comey harshly rebuked her at the close of the long investigation but concluded there was no criminal intent on her part. (She used a private server for her government business as Obama's previous Secretary of State apparently to avoid her emails being part of government records subject to possible disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or other parts of the government, including Congress.) So what is there are more "classified" emails?

Maybe the FBI wants to create more suspense in the presidential election November 8th.

The FBI has a long, notorious history of meddling in U.S. politics. (Most dramatically in its roles in the CIA assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, Jr., where the FBI role was to conduct fake investigations that duly blamed the designated fall guys and threw dirt on the trails leading to the CIA. Even interfering in urban politics isn't beneath the FBI, as in their targeting of former New York City comptroller John Liu, whose phone was tapped for years in a futile attempt to trap him in campaign finance crimes. Ultimately an FBI plant tricked one of his campaign aides into accepting an illegal contribution and she was prosecuted. The taint on Liu helped wreck his political career and sabotage his mayoral campaign.) Being a reactionary secret police organization, it wouldn't be out of character for it to sabotage the Democratic candidate, Clinton.

I suspect that FBI agents forced Comey's hand, although he may have been very willing.

The latest batch of emails were discovered in searched of computers and other devices seized from Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife, top Clinton assistant Huma Abedin. The FBI is conducting a sexual witchhunt investigation against former Congressman Anthony Weiner for alleged "sexting" to a 15-year-old girl. Media reports specified that Weiner sent a bare-chested photo of himself to the teenager. (A photo of Weiner texting bare-chested and holding his young child had been earlier publicized by the media.)

If that is a crime, then what is it when men in bathing suits walk on beaches or hang around pools where minors are present? Logically that must be criminal too.

Guess we better start wearing burqas to the beach.

If anyone under 18 sees this, it's a crime in the U.S. (No wonder they're pals with Saudi Arabia!)

FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to a clutch of Congressional Committee chairpeople notifying them that the FBI is reviewing a new batch of Hillary Clinton's emails that they found in the course of "an unrelated investigation." [Media reports say that investigation is of Anthony Weiner.]

What could possibly be new in this? The FBI had already concluded that there was "classified" emails on Clinton's server, and Comey harshly rebuked her at the close of the long investigation but concluded there was no criminal intent on her part. (She used a private server for her government business as Obama's previous Secretary of State apparently to avoid her emails being part of government records subject to possible disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or other parts of the government, including Congress.) So what is there are more "classified" emails?

Maybe the FBI wants to create more suspense in the presidential election November 8th.

The FBI has a long, notorious history of meddling in U.S. politics. (Most dramatically in its roles in the CIA assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, Jr., where the FBI role was to conduct fake investigations that duly blamed the designated fall guys and threw dirt on the trails leading to the CIA. Even interfering in urban politics isn't beneath the FBI, as in their targeting of former New York City comptroller John Liu, whose phone was tapped for years in a futile attempt to trap him in campaign finance crimes. Ultimately an FBI plant tricked one of his campaign aides into accepting an illegal contribution and she was prosecuted. The taint on Liu helped wreck his political career and sabotage his mayoral campaign.) Being a reactionary secret police organization, it wouldn't be out of character for it to sabotage the Democratic candidate, Clinton.

I suspect that FBI agents forced Comey's hand, although he may have been very willing.

The latest batch of emails were discovered in searched of computers and other devices seized from Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife, top Clinton assistant Huma Abedin. The FBI is conducting a sexual witchhunt investigation against former Congressman Anthony Weiner for alleged "sexting" to a 15-year-old girl. Media reports specified that Weiner sent a bare-chested photo of himself to the teenager. (A photo of Weiner texting bare-chested and holding his young child had been earlier publicized by the media.)

If that is a crime, then what is it when men in bathing suits walk on beaches or hang around pools where minors are present? Logically that must be criminal too.

Guess we better start wearing burqas to the beach.

If anyone under 18 sees this, it's a crime in the U.S. (Hey, no wonder they're pals with Saudi Arabia!)

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Donald Trump is aggravating the fissures in U.S. society. A narcissist running a demagogic campaign for president of the U.S., his aim is his own self-aggrandizement.

He is rabble-rousing elements of the broad, discontented, white working class and anxious "middle" classes which the establishment power system seeks to keep passive as the system of corporate oligarchy slowly and relentlessly grinds them down economically. In classic fascist/reactionary fashion, he diverts attention from understanding the actual structure and nature of society and instead scapegoats "outsiders," in his case "illegal" immigrants and would-be refugees seeking asylum from war zones. He has also identified the various trade treaties as a cause of the economic squeeze on workers, which is valid as a factor.

Trump has made a frontal assault on these so-called "free trade" deals, violating an establishment ideological taboo observed by Democrats and other Republicans alike. Trump has done more to incite opposition to these treaties than labor unions, which supposedly represent the interests of workers, and certainly more than the Democratic Party, whose dominant figures largely support these corporate-power-enhancing treaties.

And while pressing the same hot button "culture war" issues that "respectable" "conservatives" do, being a political vulgarian he doesn't do it in a muted fashion as standard-issue reactionary Republicans do but does it very sharply, as was on display in the third and last "presidential debate" last night between him and Hillary Clinton, the Democrat. (This sort of crudeness is referred to by Republican operatives themselves as tossing "red meat" to "the base." Apparently GOP voters are like pet ocelots. Trump threatens to take them off their leashes.) These issues are guns, abortion, and immigrants. (The immigrant issue of course is tied to the economic insecurity felt by millions, with racism and xenophobia in the mix.)

Trump laid down his marker on immigrants early on when he branded virtually all Mexican immigrants as rapists and murderers- a trope others have picked up, some implying that all murders in the U.S. are the work of illegal immigrants, an absurdity that goes unchallenged. Instead we get from Democrats and "liberals" heartstring-plucking stories of hardworking immigrant families (it always has to be families) and children caught in a legal bind not of their own making. Which is fine, but insufficient, as it leaves the murderer-immigrant theme unrefuted.

Trump lately has also been destabilizing the legitimacy of U.S. elections by claiming they are "rigged," to cheat him of his victory. He continued this tact last night. This is very cynical on his part, as he is doing it because he is apparently going to lose. [1]

But the irony is, U.S. elections ARE corrupt, only not in the ways Trump means. [2] For example, the last two times a Republican "won" the presidency, it was by stealing it. Bush the Younger stole Florida in 2000, aided and abetted by his brother Jeb, the then-governor of Florida, Jeb's GOP (Gang Of Plunderers) minions there who disenfranchised thousands of eligible voters, and most importantly by five Republican Supreme Court justices, who illegally blocked a recount in Florida. In 2004 Ohio was stolen, with the connivance of GOP officials there, led by Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Since 2000, the Republican-owned corporations that make the crooked voting machines have connived to steal numerous elections by programming them to switch votes from Democrats to Republicans. (The Democrats refuse to make an issue out of any of this. As for 2000, they blame it all on Ralph Nader. Talk about scapegoating!)

But the Republicans (or elements of the secret police state acting on their behalf) are more ruthless than that.
Both Paul Wellstone and Mel Carnahan were murdered by plane sabotage to help the GOP control the U.S. Senate. And a devout Christian computer programmer, who helped the Republicans steal elections, had an attack of conscience and spoke out. While flying to testify in a civil case against Karl Rove, the top Republican electoral operative, his plane too was downed, and the evidence he was carrying to the trial was removed from the crash site, never to be seen again.

We can add mass disenfranchisement by various chicanery of Democratic voters, which the Democratic Party barely objected to until very recently.

Nor does it help that the Republicans who constituted a majority on the Supreme Court before the death of arch-reactionary Antonin Scalia last year gutted the Voting Rights Act, opening the door to even more ruthless disenfranchisement of "black" citizens in the erstwhile Confederacy.

Trump has even damaged the Republican Party, which he has hijacked for his ego trip. Contrary to universal handwringing by the establishment blatherariat, this is a good thing. It is to be fervently desired to see that evil, noxious weed break up into two or more parties. (That would also have the salutary effect of weakening the extortionist power of the Democratic Party to force people to vote for them as "the lesser of two evils" to avoid a Republican victory.)

You would think that progressives would welcome things that weakens the stability of the current oppressive, imperialist, and incorrigible U.S. structure. That assumes that they understand the problems they complain about are structural in nature and deeply rooted in the nature of U.S. society. Many apparently don't understand that, but they should.

But instead, as happens every time there is the one-day-every-two-years when some actual democracy has to be allowed- democracy to the very limited extent that some people (not millions of disenfranchised people, mostly blacks) are allowed to vote from a menu of two choices presented to them- Democratic Party politicians or Republican Party politicians- what progressives and special interest "leftists"* virtually all do is line up like obedient ducklings behind the Democrats. [3] Because "the Republicans are worse." They are exhorted by Democratic Party political auxiliaries like Robert Reich (a Bill Clinton cabinet member) that "now is not the time" to seek an alternative, not even a Senator Bernard Sanders, who ran as a Democrat for president against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primaries and then supported her when he was blocked from victory. But there will never be a "right time" as long as the Republican Party exists.

Preserving the faux "unity" of the American populace under the current political and economic power structure is precisely what those in power want! Why would anyone who struggles against this system want to help do that?

The media created Donald Trump, making news stories out of even his random idiotic tweets. Now they are trying desperately to destroy his drive to the White House with sex scandalizing. To be sure, he is loathsome, and a probable rapist, as I will explain in a separate essay. (Bill Clinton is a confirmed rapist- cf. Juanita Broaddrick- and that IS relevant because he will have immense power if/when his wife achieve her goal of the presidency, her compensation for setting aside her own ambitions in Arkansas and when her husband got to be president. It's a family affair, you see. Now it's her turn. The other relevance is that Hillary was a driving force in the character assassinations of her husband's various paramours. And it went into actual terrorism. When Kathleen Willey reported a rebuffed sexual advance on her by Bill C. in the White House, her cat was killed, after which a man jogged up to her outside when she was along and mentioned the dead cat. A scary threat indeed, the implication being that he could kill her right then and there.)

Here's a good reason to look forward to the end of the election: the media obsession with Donald Trump will abate. (If we're very lucky, it will even end.) But the barbaric soul of the Republican Party has had its genteel veil torn off by Donald Trump.

1] Trump also has broken new ground, at least in the past century, by openly attacking the legitimacy of his two-party opponent. Trump at the previous debate said he would jail Hillary Clinton if elected. Last night he said she shouldn't even be allowed to run because of her "many crimes." If he had meant crimes against humanity, he would have been onto something. He just meant her private email server, destroying 30,000 emails, an allegedly lying to the FBI.

This attack on the legitimacy of the official opposition can be seen as rooted in the GOP attacks on Obama's legitimacy, including the claims that he was born in Kenya and thus Constitutionally ineligible to be president. The GOP didn't overtly push that line, but its auxiliaries in "talk" radio promoted it. Trump took that "issue" and ran with it in the years when he was preparing the ground for his attempt to grab the presidency.
Nor are fraudulent claims of election-stealing by the Democrats new. The myth has long been nurtured that JFK stole the 1960 election from Nixon by stealing Illinois. That myth is easily refuted by simple arithmetic. Just subtract the Illinois electoral votes from Kennedy's total and add them to Nixon's. Kennedy still wins. But as Reagan said, "facts are stupid things."

In fact, the Republican Party, by pushing relentlessly to the right (with the help of almost the entire U.S. media) over the last almost 50 years, a campaign of reaction and rollback that was a response to the upsurges of the 1960s, has really opened the door to a demagogue like Trump. The years of rightwing extremism have validated the derangement and inculcated the rightwing segment of the populace in irrational beliefs an animosities.

2] Trump claims illegal immigrants are voting, "dead people" are voting, illegal immigrants are not just voting once, but "fifteen times," etc. etc. This is of a piece with his general cynical demagoguery designed to rabble-rouse the racists and xenophobes, who number in the millions.

3] I use "leftists" for want of a better single word, and also because that is how the power structure thinks of them, especially the secret police agencies, "talk" radio, hard-rightwing media, and rightists generally, even though that is a stupid way to think of them. I am referring to single-issue people such as those categorized as environmentalists, gay rights activists, "civil" i.e. black rights people, and so on, dozens of such splinter groups with no unity, each applying a modicum of pressure on the system to achieve its own ends within the current system without changing its basic imperialist, corporate oligarchic nature one whit.

The truth is, the vast majority of progressives are frightened of pulling down the temple of power. That's why their distress at Trump's refusal to validate the fairness of the election has them in a tizzy as much as it has the establishment media the the Democrats. Even as I'm writing this, one Kristen Clarke is talking to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! (the first segment of the day's show) and prattling on about U.S. "democracy" being the "model for the world" and how "distressing" it is that Trump would question the legitimacy of a U,S. election. Then she segued into a total non sequitur about voter suppression against blacks! Which would seem to undercut her boilerplate propaganda about legitimacy and a Model for the World. She keeps referring to "conspiracy theories," and brushes aside a question about Gore v. Bush in 2000 ("We're not going to relitigate [that]" i.e. not going to discuss, remember, or learn from) and denies U.S. elections can possibly be rigged. "Rigged elections, pure mythology, pure fiction..."! [What, 2000 wasn't? 2004 wasn't?]

Clarke is also bent out of shape that Obama's nominee for the "broken" Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a conservative former prosecutor, hasn't been given a Senate confirmation hearing. "A Constitutional Crisis" she calls it. "I am deeply concerned about this era of political obstruction we are in," she says, parroting Democratic Party rhetoric.

Clarke is President and Executive Director of the "Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law," founded in 1963 at the request of president John F. Kennedy. That political pedigree maybe tells you all you need to know about where Clarke is coming from.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Shimon Peres, a lifelong member of that small clique that constitutes the top echelon of the Israeli political power elite, has died at 92, following a stroke. His death comes not long after that of Ariel Sharon, a lifelong killer of Palestinians who didn't long outlive a hated foe whose assassination he ordered, Yasser Arafat.

The death of Peres has been marked in Western media by a thoroughly dishonest sendoff, hailing Peres as a "Man of Peace." His roles as the father of Israel's nuclear weapons program, a man who pushed for the "Judaification" and absorption of conquered West Bank territory, who offered to sell an atomic weapon to the apartheid South African regime, have been blotted out in the mendacious eulogizing by the English language propaganda systems of the U.S. and UK in particular.

In painting Peres as a tireless seeker of "peace," the misleadingly-titled "Oslo Peace Process" was placed front and center as evidence. Unmentioned was the key fact that exposes that process like a flash of lightning, illuminating its true nature. Namely that during the years of dilatory "negotiations," the Israelis doubled the "settler" population in the West Bank, while supposedly intending to hand it over for a Palestinian state.

A few years ago Israeli propagandists created a music-video featuring Peres asking others to join him for "peace." This was part of a strategy to present Israel as longing for "peace." So obviously if the Israelis found it necessary to continually mete out violence to the Palestinians (and occasionally the Lebanese) and every few years "mow the lawn" in their cynical phrase, in Gaza, meaning destroying the infrastructure (power plants, water and sewage facilities, industries and businesses and hospitals and schools and even such things as a chicken farm, while killing and wounding and maiming a few thousand more Palestinians of all ages),why, their victims must be forcing them to do it, since the Israelis only want peace.

Obviously this is errant nonsense, as Israel has been a mini-imperialist state beginning in 1948. One purpose of propaganda is to obscure the obvious and replace it with illusion. Previous Israeli propaganda themes, such as "A land without people for a people without land," and "they made the desert bloom" (so all those Palestinian farms and orchards never existed, nor did the Palestinians themselves, for as Golda Meir said, "there is no such thing as the Palestinian people") all have been assiduously repeated by Western media. That goes for the "Peres Man of Peace" propaganda trope also. So Western media is behaving true to form.

This isn't being "anti-Israel," certainly not "anti-Semitic," the go-to slur for people who speak inconvenient truths out loud. It is factual accuracy, something Western "news" media and "journalists" are mostly indifferent to.

Barack "The Drone Assassin" Obama and other "world leaders" (country bosses) rushed to Israel to deliver encomiums at Peres' funeral. Mahmoud Abbas, the fake puppet stooge "president" of All The Palestinians, running a Bantustan-style substatelet of Israel called the "Palestinian Authority," also showed up at Peres funeral to pay his respects to a lifelong dispossessor and oppressor of Palestinians. (Well, why not? He helps Israel assassinate Palestinian activists, after all. This became evident when the New York Times, in typically smarmy fashion, obliquely pointed to such a case when they buried a short paragraph two-thirds down deep in a lengthy article. The paragraph mentioned a Palestinian prisoner released from a "Palestinian Authority" prison. The very next day an Israeli death squad murdered him at his West Bank home. Wow, that's some great intel! Wonder where they got it from! Fact is, the PA connives with Israeli death squads. Keep in mind that the CIA trained those Palestinian "security forces." The PA is a U.S.-Israeli satrapy created as a subcontractor for the oppression of the Palestinian people. But even Abbas can't continue the 20-year charade of "negotiations" with Israel. That con job string is played out, except in dishonest Western "commentary.")

Peres got to live for over 9 decades. During those decades, several thousand Palestinian children had no such good fortune.

Sunday, October 09, 2016

"Anyone who knows me knows these words don't reflect who I am." -Donald "SuperEgo" Trump explaining why we should disregard his boasting about grabbing women by the "pussy," kissing women he doesn't even know, describing them as meat and himself acting like a beast of prey. [1]

"That's not who we are!" -Barack "The Drone Assassin" Obama, every time he has to explain away U.S. criminality or venality.

So, it doesn't matter if Americans torture people, assassinate people, bomb hospitals and journalists, imprison millions- since that's "Not who we are," it doesn't count as part of character and identity. Some doppelganger America did it. Perhaps an imposter America. Since America is really a Good Country, and Obama a Good Man, and Trump whatever he says he is, the actions to the contrary are not their responsibility. Thus the culprits dissociate themselves from their own crimes.

Hillary Clinton also trotted out the "That's not who we are" trope recently. Apparently this is now going to be an enduring part of U.S. propaganda and denial. [2]

Add that to Obama's Legacy.

1] Trump and his supporters (including the loathsome Rudolph Giuliani making the rounds of the Sunday morning TV political propaganda show October 10, a man who openly carried on an affair while mayor and still married to another woman) have tried to play down the vulgar conversation between Trump and celebrity brownnoser Billy Bush, a member of the Bush clan and cousin of the most recent president Bush. Their spin is that it was a long time ago, and Trump apologized (grudgingly, reluctantly, and in a pro forma manner, while simultaneously attacking by saying Bill Clinton has said worse, and threatening to bring up at the next debate with Hillary Clinton the rape of Juanita Broaddrick and all the "bimbo eruptions"- to use the Clintons' campaign from 1992 when Bill's sexual affairs threatened his candidacy for President) and anyway he's not like that now.

But it wasn't just the words Trump used: Trump was describing his own habitual conduct. (The disgusting Billy Bush cackled gleefully at Trump's self-description, something there has been no comment on by "the" media. I guess those bastards cover each others' asses.)

Trump has a history of misogyny and stalking of women going back to his high school days. He has always felt entitled, being the son of a rich landlord. On the Bush tape, he says when you're a celebrity "you can do anything." Indeed, there are privileges reserved to some in this society. And in Trump's case, he didn't even have to be discreet! But now he discovers that when you run for a competitive political office, your life is put under scrutiny and your bad behavior no longer covered up for you.

CNN just dredged up radio clips spanning 23 years of Trump's banter with the vulgar Howard Stern. Remember, this stuff was broadcast over public airwaves, with nary a ding to Trump's reputation until now. Here are a few gems:

Trump said he would “have no problem” having sex with 24-year-olds, and he “couldn’t care less” if he satisfies the women he sleeps with. But they have to be young, since “it’s checkout time” once women reach age 35. He also boasted that he'd engaged in three-way sex. “Haven’t we all?” Trump told Stern on his SiriusXM satellite radio show in 2008, obviously aware that "we all" haven't. Notice the ploy to assert his own superiority and make others feel inferior.

Someone might want to think twice about working for Trump enterprise. When he owned the Miss Universe pageant, he would barge in on nude contestants in their dressing room, calling it an "inspection."

With his connoisseur's eye, Trump pronounced of his daughter Ivanka, “She’s actually always been very voluptuous,”

Here's Trump's definition of "the perfect date:"

“You meet at 7 for drinks. You promise to take her to dinner, but you never get there.”

That's my definition of a lout.

2] Far more substantive than Trump's sexism and misogyny is the expose of what Clinton said to all those finance capitalists in the speeches they so richly paid her for. It was the opposite of what she claims to stand for in her public pronouncements during this campaign. (No surprise, really.) Thanks to Russia and WikiLeaks for that. But "the" media is making a much bigger deal out of the Trump scandal du jour, since the establishment consensus is that Trump Must Not Be President. Why, he won't even demonize Official Enemy Vladimir Putin!

The latest Saudi Arabian war crime in Yemen, the aerial bombing of a funeral which killed as of this writing 140 people and wounded hundreds more, has forced to U.S. to wag its finger at the Saudis. The Obama regime has greased the skids for the sale of billions of dollars of advanced U.S. armaments to the Saudis- warplanes and ordnance, including cluster bombs and white phosphorus- which the Saudis and their Gulf State lackeys have used to pummel Yemen, ostensibly to counter Iranian influence, and to restore to power a puppet Yemeni "president" who was overthrown by Houthi tribesmen.

U.S. arms sales to foreign powers are by U.S. law supposed to be used only in "self-defense." Naturally, this law has long been ignored in practice (see Israel, for example, which actually gets free weapons- the U.S. gives Israel the money to buy U.S. weapons). Saudi Arabia has been bombarding Yemen for over a year, and sent in ground forces as well. (It also sent military forces into Bahrain, to help crush protests there by the Shiite majority against the tyrannical Sunni "royal" rulers.) As usual, the U.S. is the Arrnorer of Reaction, a role it has filled with gusto since 1945.

The Obama regime's reaction to this latest Saudi outrage is to aver that it might cut back a bit on arms sales to the Saudis.

The Saudis have been systematically targeting civilian targets for over a year, including markets, homes, mosques, and hospital and clinics. This has been mostly ignored by the U.S. media, which prefers to focus on the crimes of enemy states- currently Russia's bombing campaign in Syria, marked by Saudi-style targeting of hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure necessary for life, (Of course the Russians have had plenty of practice in devastation of civilians, such as their razing of Grozny, in order to crush a Chechen insurrection.)

The U.S. has been providing critical cooperation in the Saudi war against the Yemeni populace. It's aerial refueling tankers aid and abet the war crimes. Its military officers sit next to the Saudis and provide targeting information for the warplanes the U.S. sold the Saudis. And of course it provides political cover and a diplomatic shield for the criminal Saudi regime. Aiding and abetting crime is a crime.

So after all that, the Obama regime hints that maybe it'll dawdle and selling more arms to the Saudis! That's a pure p.r. ploy, vintage Obama, one of the world's great con artists.

Obama has proven in many ways to be a very militaristic president. He has micromanaged a "war on terror" in seven countries, exceeding even Lyndon Johnson's obsession with the Vietnam war in this regard. (Johnson merely selected bombing targets; Obama picks actual individuals to kill.) He has put in motion a nuclear weapons buildup projected to cost one TRILLION dollars. He just gifted Israel an unprecedented 10-year gift of $38 billion in free weaponry to use in their periodic slaughters of Palestinians and Lebanese. And he has presided over the ever-increasing U.S. military budget. (The increases are smaller than originally desired, so these increases are called "cuts." What a gang of liars our rulers, especially the media accomplices, are!)

And yet, there are still idiots who cling to the illusion that Obama is "progressive."

I spotted him as a con man in 2004, when he burst onto the national stage with that phony, Mario Cuomoesque speech at that year's Democratic Party convention. Nor was I ever tricked into voting for him, as so many fools, entranced by this great Pied Piper, were.

It's amazing how long the Democratic Party has gotten away with this con of being a "progressive" party. It only pulls it off because it compares itself to the arch-reactionary Republicans, the Gang Of Plunderers.

Friday, October 07, 2016

In an unprecedented move, the Norwegian swells who decide who is worthy of High Acclaim and Prestige in the world, awarded the annual Nobel Peace Prize they control to only one side in a "peace process." The worthies gave the prize (funded by deceased explosives multi-millionaire Alfred Nobel) to Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos, omitting his negotiating partner, the rebel FARC organization and its leaders. [1]

Consider previous similar prizes: in 1994 the Peace Prize was bestowed upon the Israeli political bosses Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, and the Palestinian "terrorist" Yasser Arafat, for initiating the deceptively misnamed "Oslo Peace Process." (It actually was a con job and long stalling process during which, over eight years, the Israelis, with their U.S. patrons running interference for them, doubled the "settler" population in the occupied territories while pretending to be "negotiating" for a future Palestinian state on the same land. This was yet another of Bill Clinton's deceptions and crimes against humanity.)

In 1993, the Big Prize went to the president of the racist apartheid South African regime, F. W. de Klerk, and the "terrorist" ANC head Nelson Mandela, for negotiating a transition to more democratic rule, ending a decades-long period of repression and insurgency.

And in 1978, the prize went to Egyptian president Anwar Satat and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin (formerly head of the terrorist Irgun). This for negotiating a peace treaty between their two nations.
But apparently the FARC is beyond the pale to the international bourgeoisie.

Facts, history, and reality all have to be ignored in the "universal" demonization of FARC by the international bourgeoisie. Start with the estimated 250,000 who have "died in the 52 year conflict." Most were unarmed civilians murdered by the military, police, and fascist auxiliaries, the right-wing death squads euphemised as "paramilitaries" (never "terrorists," the label officially branded on FARC). Just a year ago or so mass graves were discovered outside a military base containing the corpses of civilians murdered by soldiers who claimed their victims were "guerrillas," to obtain bounties and inflate their body count.

It is also misleading to refer to a "52 year long civil war." There was a previous cessation of war- but not of violence, as it turned out- when the FARC laid down their arms and ran candidates for office. This turned out to be a great opportunity for the rich of Colombia to try and exterminate people for progress. The Colombian bourgeoisie duly unleashed their fascist killers on the FARC candidates, supporters, and allies, to murder thousands of "leftists." This period of one-sided violence lasted from 1984-87. And according to Wikipedia: "In 1989 a single large landholder had over 400 UP members murdered. Over 70% of all Colombian presidential candidates in 1990—and 100% of those from center-left parties—were assassinated." [Sources at Wikipedia.] [2]

The fact of the previous three-year attempt by FARC and others to "participate in the political process," which was met by massive state terrorism, is virtually blacked out of bourgeois history and media commentary. This is ideologically and politically necessary in order to paint FARC as "the bad guys," ruthless killer terrorists who "take hostages" (capture prisoners to try and exchange for their own people held as prisoners by the government, which has always refused prisoner exchanges) and "traffic in drugs" (as if the Colombian goverment, the "paramilitaries," and the CIA DON'T do the same).

By the way, the U.S. has sent its experts in state terrorism down to Colombia at least since 1959, five years before the FARC took up arms. This "Special Survey Team" of "counterinsurgency experts" recommended a sinister program of "intervention," and that "to shield the interests of both Colombian and US authorities against 'interventionist' charges any special aid given for internal security was to be sterile and covert in nature." In 1962 another group of U.S. Army covert terrorists, headed by a general this time, paid another visit to Colombia to conspire in repression with the Colombian "security forces" by teaching them methods, equipping them, and over all institutionalizing "professional" methods of ubiquitous human rights atrocities and a permanent feature of this typical U.S. client state in its "own backyard."

The award to Santos comes days after a referendum presented to the Colombian public to ratify the peace agreement negotiated with FARC was rejected by a bare majority of 50.2% of the 40% of eligible voters who actually voted. Thus 20% of the electorate defeated the deal.

In the aftermath of the vote, the BBC among others has given play to the complaints of the fascist elements of the Colombian elite who opposed the agreement. They are outraged that FARC members won't be imprisoned as long as they confess. (No mention of the crimes and impunity afforded to their death squads and their military.) They are also outraged that FARC didn't have to turn over all their weapons before an agreement!!! And they find it unacceptable that a whole ten seats were to be reserved in the bicameral legislature for the FARC. (I guess they think the FARC's candidates should just be murdered, as happened during the last peace agreement.)

The previous president, Alvaro Uribe, a rich landowner who founded the death squads, has been a vociferous opponent of any peace agreement with FARC. He led this opposition, preferring to press on with extermination. (Aided by U.S.-guided assassination of top FARC personnel.)

Enjoy your prize, Santos. I mean the 8 million Swedish Krona ( a bit less than one million U.S. dollars, $926,000 as of today.)

Maybe the Norwegians just didn't want the U.S. to indict them for providing "material support to terrorism"!

1] Alfred Nobel was a Swedish industrialist, trained in chemistry and engineering who is usually described as an inventor and "innovator," His big "innovation" was developing dynamite. During that process, there were glitches along the way, including an explosion that killed his brother and four others. By 1867 his efforts bore fruit. After dynamite, apparently obsessed with explosives, Nobel invented gelignite in 1875, which is even more powerful than dynamite, and in 1887 he patented ballistite, a predecessor of cordite.

Another of his "innovations" was converting the iron and steel manufacturing company Bofors into a major weapons maker, especially of heavy armaments like cannons.

Nobel grew rich from dynamite and from his trade in arms and ordnance. But he was stung in 1888 by an obituary about him which a French newspaper, mistaking Nobel's brother for Alfred himself (the brother had just died), published, which stated: "The merchant of death is dead" and "Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday."

Nobel, desirous of having a good reputation "in perpetuity" as they say, that is, worried about what people would think of him after he was dead and no longer existed, hit upon what has proven to be one of the most brilliant, effective, and durable public relations moves of all time. He set up the Nobel Prizes, to be funded after his death through a trust fund in which he secretly put most of his wealth (the amount in the trust estimated at $265 million in current U.S. dollars), causing disappointment and surprise among his relatives and friends, who only discovered this after his death. (Rich people are almost invariably selfish creeps, and love to stick it to the fawners and sycophants who cravenly try to curry their favor in hopes of a big payoff in the future. The rich often secretly hold these wishful thinkers in contempt. Their wealth makes them chronically paranoid and distrustful that other people are only interested in them for their money. This is one reason the rich generally limit their friendships and socializing to other rich people, forming an insular and armored class of the rich.)

There are five Nobel Prizes, for Chemistry (natch, since he was a chemist), Peace (ironically), Literature, Physics, and Physiology or Medicine. They were first awarded in 1901. The "Economics Prize" was invented later by the Bank of Sweden, which attached it to Nobel's name to leech off the prestige of the real Nobels. The bank got the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the two science Nobels, to hand out the "Economics" prizes. Swedish institutions handle the awards other than the "Peace" prize, which is controlled by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. For some reason Nobel didn't want his fellow Swedes handling that one. Go figure.